Longtime poverty writer and television producer, Becky Johnson of Santa Cruz, Ca. shares her essays, videos, and favorite articles on the issues of the day from the faux Swine Flu pandemics, to saving lives and billions with breast thermography. From smoking bans to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, try to keep up with Becky on Twitter at https://twitter.com/BeckyJohnson222

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- On November 30th 2011, 100 to 200 people entered an empty bank building leased to Wells Fargo and turned it into a community center. After 3 days, they cleaned up the building and silently departed, having made their point: Empty Buildings ARE the crime! Especially in a City where over 1000 homeless people shiver in the cold each night, and hundreds of people would welcome having a space such as 75 River Street in which to open a business, a non-profit, or some City service which serves the public. Instead, we get nothing. No jobs. No services. Very little in the way of taxes. A deadspot right downtown, so central to Santa Cruz it shares a boundary with the main Santa Cruz Post Office property.

A forlorn-looking "For Lease" sign has been hanging on the north-west corner for years now. Records show that last time the building had an occupant was in 2008 when Wells Fargo "merged" with the locally-owned Coast Commercial Bank. As of this date, its been empty for four years and counting.

Portion of lease owned by Wells Fargo for 75 River Street

Here is why we shouldn't expect this building to have a tenant anytime soon, especially not at the $28,790/mo. asking rent. You see, the ACTUAL rent Wells Fargo is paying to property owner, Barry Swenson Properties, is $37, 714.90/month. Rentals of commercial properties in downtown Santa Cruz are extremely costly, but even so, no one has rented this space at only 76% of its actual cost.

To understand why Wells Fargo continues this practice, one must understand how banks work. This isn't the easiest of tasks as bank practices are shrouded in mystery, with all disputes settled in mediation and not subject to criminal prosecution or public record. However, back in the early '90's, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago published a helpful pamphlet called "Modern Money Mechanics." While currently out of print, some enterprising person photo-copied it and helpfully posted it online here.

Here is undoubtedly what Wells Fargo is doing with the property at 75 River Street.

Taking the higher amount (the ACTUAL rental cost) of $37, 714.90/mo. we multiply this by 12 so we can determine the yearly value/cost of the lease = $452,578.80/yr

This value is added to Wells Fargo's portfolio as an asset with a dollar value, whether it is rented out or not. According to the rules of the Federal Reserve fractional banking system, WF must keep 1/10th on hand and can lend out 9/10ths of the value to its customers in the form of home, car, and business loans. Therefore, the $452,578.80 becomes the 1/10th and WF legally places 9/10ths of that amount into its general accounts, manufacturing that amount completely out of thin air.

Wells Fargo now has $4,073,209.20 to lend out to you and to me. EVERY YEAR!

Cumulative expansion in deposits on initial deposit of $10,000 over several stages resulting in over $95,000 after 20 stages under Federal Reserve fractional banking system. --From Modern Money Mechanics

They get to keep all of the interest made too.

Out of this inflated amount they pay Barry Swenson Properties $452,578.80 a year rent. He pays the property taxes of $40,000/yr. netting a profit of $412,578.80 per year on the vacant building.

Wells Fargo is now $3,620,630.20 to the good for just one year. This exceeds the asking rental amount of $345,480.00/yr rental income they would get if they actually rented it out to a tenant. Since the property is NOT rented, WF is probably deducting either the lower amount or the higher amount of $452,578.80/yr as a LOSS to offset profits elsewhere in their portfolio.

Now if Wells Fargo has any kind of relationship with any other bank, let's just say Bank of America, since they have a legal relationship with any bank registered with the Central Banking system of the United States, including BofA. They can "lend" the lease to B of A as a "Stage 2" deposit (minus the 10% WF keeps in its reserves). So B of A then takes the $4,073, 209.20 WF has available to loan.

Since they too are a bank, they can keep 10% as reserves so that THEY can now lend out $36,658,881 keeping the $4,073,209.20 "in reserve". B of A can now "lend" this amount to another Central Bank, say Chase as a "Stage 3" deposit and they can inflate the amount by nine-fold as well. And this is how money is created.

Why do bankers get to manufacture all this money out of thin air? Because of the Federal Reserve System which was established in 1913. Why do we allow bankers to profit so immensely while leaving "dead spots" in our community? I guess because no one can believe what the enormity of their crimes.

Currently I am facing 4 charges leveled by Wells Fargo against 11 local activists, Occupy Santa Cruz members, and alternative media journalists. I am accused of felony conspiracy to trespass and felony conspiracy to vandalize the empty building at 75 River Street, as well as 2 misdemeanor counts of trespass and vandalism. You see, as a homeless activist, I believe these buildings should be used for housing, businesses, non-profits, or community services. With homeless people dying on our streets, Empty Building ARE the Crime! While I am innocent of these charges, I considered the 3-day occupation of the building to be a righteous act drawing attention to an injustice occurring right in our community.

In addition, Wells Fargo has cooked up enormously overblown charges of $26,000 in "damages" for which they have submitted billing sheets. Of the 9 contractors WF used, not a single one was from Santa Cruz County, including rekeying the entire building using a locksmith in Foster City and charging $6,545.41 to remove "broken" furniture and take it to the dump by a contractor in San Leandro, California. In fact, these invoices for "damages" mirror the trumped-up documents Wells Fargo uses as assets to charge you and me REAL money.

But until the fractional banking reserve system is reformed, we will see no changes. Empty buildings surround every bank we see. And indeed, in Santa Cruz, they are everywhere.

by Becky JohnsonDecember 6, 2012Santa Cruz, Ca. -- 12 jurors and 2 alternates listened to Linda Lemaster tell her story on the witness stand of her night on the steps of the courthouse back in August of 2010. She told jurors that she had not meant to fall asleep at all, despite a certain civil-disobedience element of the protest going on. For Peace Camp 2010 WAS a protest against Sleeping Bans. Part of the protest included people sleeping openly on the courthouse steps to educate the public on the lack of legal places for homeless people to sleep in the City and County.

"I was there to attend to Christopher Doyon," she told jurors. "He wouldn't go to the hospital, and I couldn't get anyone else to watch over him, so I ended up staying there that night."

Her good Samaritan efforts were not rewarded. At 4:30AM, Sheriff's deputies woke her and others up to cite them, not for MC 6.36.010 section a, the Sleeping Ban, which outlaws the act of sleeping between 11PM and 8:30AM (an infraction), but instead, sheriff's were using PC 647 (e) a Statewide part of the disorderly conduct code which outlaws "illegal lodging." What constituted "lodging" proved to be a sticky wicket. Not that that stopped prosecutors or juries.

While PC 647(e) applies to the entire State, Sheriff's opted to enforce it ONLY on the steps of the courthouse where the protest was taking place. Those who refused to leave quickly enough were cited. Lemaster attempted to speak to a Deputy about Doyon and his condition, but was asked to wait. She complied but was cited instead. While Lemaster was not homeless, and had not made those steps her "new home", on November 9th, the jury convicted her.

In May 2011, Ed Frey and Gary Johnson were both convicted by a jury of illegal lodging and Judge John Gallagher sentenced them both to six months in county jail. Both have finished serving their sentences.

It's estimated that each jury trial costs between $80,000 and $100,000 to conduct. Jail costs at our already overcrowded facilities are in addition to that figure. Housing homeless people in area motels could cost a fraction of that amount.

Lemaster, who suffers from severe allergies and asthma, worries her health could be adversely affected if she is incarcerated. She currently lives in specialized housing to reduce the impact of dust and mold on her lungs.

Today, Linda Lemaster is to be sentenced by Judge Rebecca Connolly at 3:30PM in dept 5. Many of her supporters are likely to be there and will speak on behalf of Ms. Lemaster. At age 63, Linda, a disabled woman and the mother of three has done a remarkable amount of service to the community of Santa Cruz. Despite three separate bouts with homelessness herself (the last time due to a fire at her father-in-law's apartment that resulted in the entire family becoming homeless), Lemaster has served on a number of City Commissions and Task Forces.

Supporters begin to gather at a Benefit for Linda Lemaster held at India Joze Restaurant on Dec 2nd. photo by Becky Johnson

She is the former Chair of the Commission for Prevention of Violence Against Women, Former Chair of the Homeless Issues Task Force, project director of Housing Now! Santa Cruz, and a member of the County's Homeless Action Partnership which recently sponsored a very successful "Homeless Summit" attended by 250 social service providers, police, politicians, faith-based program members, and homeless advocates at Cabrillo College on December 1st.

In addition to her service for non-profits and City Commissions, Lemaster is a gifter writer, has been published in Street Spirit, and has her own blog, Linda's Hearth. She is personally compassionate person who has helped many individuals suffering from homelessness thru feedings, clothes donations, and offering showers to some as well.

A Rally is planned at 2:30PM at Occuplaza (The northside of the courthouse on the Water St. side) with sentencing to begin at 3:30PM in Dept 5.

IF U ATTEND: 701 Ocean St. Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060 parking up to 2 hours in lot is free.

IF U OPPOSE the use of Sleeping Bans or the use of PC 647 (e) against homeless people, please contact DA Bob Lee, District Attorney for the County of Santa Cruz with your concerns.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

NOTE TO READER: I had the pleasure of hearing a talk by Melanie Phillips at UCSC a few years ago. She, like me, identifies with the left. She, like me, when examining the issues associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has come down firmly on the pro-Israel side. She, like me, has paid a huge price for holding that position. So it is with great pleasure that I offer my blog readers her analysis of the death toll in the Gaza 2012 War from a reasoned point of view. No photos of dead, bloody babies. Just facts, research, and a persuasive analysis. ---Becky Johnson, Ed.

Here is the (real) news

By Melanie Phillips

Here is some information about the war between Gaza and
Israel that for some unaccountable reason you may have missed today in Britain’s
mainstream media.

The casualty rate in Gaza from Israeli
strikes is astoundingly low

Since the beginning of Israel’s operation Pillar of
Defence last Wednesday against Hamas rocket attacks, there have been more than
1000 Israeli air strikes. At time of writing, the Palestinian
death toll is 69. That is a staggeringly small number of fatalities
for more than 1000 bombing raids.
It shows beyond doubt that the Israelis are not only
doing everything they can to avoid civilian casualties, but have achieved a
degree of precision in doing so which no other army can match. For sure, every
civilian casualty is regrettable, and the deaths of children are always tragic
-- today’s apparently heavy toll particularly so, including at what appears to
have been a mistaken target. Such mistakes inevitably happen in war.
But consider this: the very low casualty rate among
Israelis from the thousands of rockets that have rained down on them from Gaza is
largely due to the fact that Israel has provided its citizens with shelters to
save their lives. In Gaza, by horrific contrast, the Hamas leadership has deliberately
exposed its citizens to attack by siting its rocket arsenals among them in
order to maximise the number of civilian men, women and children who will be
killed.

A number of Gazan civilians may have been
killed by their own rockets

Israel says
that no fewer than 60 of the 703 rockets that Hamas fired at Israel between
last Wednesday and Saturday fell inside Gaza on Palestinian civilians. The
question therefore is how many of the 69 dead Palestinians were killed by
their own rockets?

Here’s one: Hamas lies that a child killed
by its own rocket was killed by Israel

Last Friday, a number of papers along with outlets such
as CNN in the US published prominent footage of the Egyptian Prime Minister
Hisham Kanil weeping over the body cradled in his arms of a dead child, Mahmoud
Sadallah, who Hamas claimed had been killed in an Israeli air strike. Blogger Elder
of Zyon smelled a rat and, piecing together convincing circumstantial
evidence, had concluded by this morning that the child was almost certainly not
killed by an Israeli strike – not least because on Friday morning when the
child died the Israelis had paused their bombing missions to allow for cease-fire
talks in Gaza to proceed -- but by a Hamas missile that was fired at Israel
but had fallen short in Gaza. Now experts from the Palestinian Centre for Human
Rights who visited the site on Saturday have said they believe that the
explosion that killed Mahmoud Sadallah was indeed caused by a Palestinian
rocket.
Just how prominent do you reckon the apologies on CNN
and in the British media for this sloppy and incompetent reporting/malicious
war libel of Israel will be?

Hamas admits to using human shields

In 2008 , Gaza MP Fathi Muhammad boasted
that Hamas used Gaza’s civilian population as human shields. He screamed:

‘For the Palestinian people, death has become an
industry at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land.
The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is
why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly and
the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if
they were saying to the Zionist enemy, “We desire death like you desire life”.’

Remember this next time you hear or read of claims by Palestinians
or their useful western media idiots of ‘massacres’ of civilians in Gaza.

Hamas is now using journalists as human
shields

Hamas is preventing at least 22 foreign journalists from
leaving Gaza for Israel. According to Israel’s
Foreign Ministry, among those being detained are nine Italian citizens, one
Canadian, one South Korean, a French national and six journalists from Japan.
In addition, two Turkish Red Crescent members have been refused exit.

Hamas tells lies as a matter of routine

Hamas has claimed, inter
alia, that Israel’s Ben Gurion airport has been closed (false), that it had succeeded
in shooting down an Israeli F16 plane (false), that it had hit Tel Aviv and had
cut off electricity there (false). When will the western media stop assuming
that they can believe any claim that Hamas ever makes?

Hamas is now threatening human bomb
attacks

Hamas is now threatening to
use human bombs against both Israeli civilians in buses and cafes, and against
Israeli soldiers in any ground offensive in Gaza. This is what almost certainly
faces the Israel Defence Forces if they go in, because as Fathi Muhammad said
(above), the Palestinians are a death cult; they are committed to death and to killing,
while the Israelis are committed to life and to saving life.

Israel is feeding the hand that bites it

Unprecedentedly for a country at war, Israel continues to supply food, gas
and medical supplies to its enemies in Gaza for humanitarian reasons. Would any
other country in the world keep the supply route open to people who are firing
thousands of rockets to murder its people and are threatening to turn themselves
into human bombs to kill its soldiers and civilians, so that they can continue
to do so?

‘Despite all the foreign aid and support, Israel has
spectacularly failed to get on with its neighbours. Does Israel deserve a
future?’

So with Israel having faced existential attack from the
Arab and Muslim world for the six decades of its existence, and having been under
intensive rocket, missile and human bomb attack from them for more than a
decade, the BBC Any Questions production team selected as the audience question
to launch its discussion of the Gaza war whether Israel actually deserved to
exist at all.
Vile.

Friday, November 9, 2012

Linda Lemaster (left) attending one of many pre-trial hearings with supporters, Leslie and Kent, November 2, 2012 for a "lodging" ticket she got two years ago. Photo by Becky Johnson

by Becky Johnson

November 9, 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- According to ADA Alex Byers, Linda Lemaster faces Six Months in Jail for the
"crime"of sleeping/not sleeping on public/private
property with /without possessions for a long/short period of
time which can be intentional/unintentional, all subject to the "permission" of the
"authority."

Linda is on trial for PC 647 ( e ) or illegal "lodging" under a little-used portion of the State code, which sheriff's had not used before citing protestors at Peace Camp 2010.

According to Byers, a protester with his/her
sign attempting to peaceably assemble to seek redress of government grievances may do so:

ONLY where the govt. tells them they can.

ONLY when the govt. tells them they can.

And, apparently, NOT while sitting, lying down, or sleeping
since these = lodging. And if a Sheriff tells you you can't "lodge" then whatever you are doing is "lodging." According to Byers, Sheriff's didn't need to prove a person was "lodging" in order to issue a citation. Only that they were "still there on the steps when sheriff's came back."

On the night of August 10th, as Linda Lemaster was cited for illegal lodging, Sheriff's moved elderly, Collette Connolly off the steps. Here she collapses in exhaustion on her belongings a scant 50 feet from the courthouse. Why Sheriff's told us the steps of the courthouse were illegal at 4:30AM but the parking lot was not was only one of the many arbitrary and confusing encounters Peace Camp 2010 had with law enforcement. Photo by Becky Johnson

Oh, THAT's a convenient definition of the code! When a sheriff hands you an unsigned piece of paper, then, according to Byers, that person "has been educated"that they no longer have the right to carry a sign, to protest, or to seek redress of government grievances. And if a protester wants to publicly assemble? They must follow "time, place, and manner restrictions" which are not written in the law anywhere.

Christopher Doyon a.k.a. "X" of Peace Camp 2010 pauses on the lower steps at Peace Camp 2010. In the background, Ed Frey's white, pick-up truck can be seen hitched to the camp porto-pottie. Other than Ed's privy, homeless people had no access to a bathroom at night other than at Peace Camp 2010. Photo by Becky Johnson July 30, 2010

For ADA Alex Byers, camping = lodging except that "camping" is not illegal in that particular location under County Code.

While camping is , according to Byers, essentially the same thing, "lodging" rates 6 months
in jail and/or a $1000 fine. And CAMPING is legal in the location where Linda was cited. Committing the same crime in the City (and Lemaster WAS in the City when she was cited) rates a $92 citation or 8 hours of community service as a possible consequence. So why did the sheriff's use the statewide "lodging" code rather than the County's camping code or the City's Sleeping and Blanket ban?

According to ADA, Alex Byers, it was due to "tolerance."

Those at Peace Camp 2010 know better. The plucky little group had discovered that the County's camping ban does not apply to the grounds around the courthouse and government center. In other words "camping" is legal there. Also, due to jurisdictional agreements, City police do not patrol the grounds at the Government Center. Sheriff's opted to not enforce City codes against Sleeping and using blankets. Codes that are all infractions, violations of which do not include jail. These were the twin laws the protest had assembled to challenge.

Peace Camp 2010 used public space which is unused at night. This photo taken on July 20th at 8:13PM shows people setting up bedding. At 8:00AM, Ed Frey would drive the porto-pottie off of the property and normal use of the facilities would commence. Photo by Becky Johnson

Around the end of July, County Counsel, Dana McCrae dusted off the lawbooks and dug up a code which used language lifted from an 1880 law in California designed to keep freed slaves from moving into the State. Judges Gallagher and in this trial, Connolly further eroded civil rights by creating a definition which lifts language from the 1851 Indiana State Constitution which states: "No Negro or Mulatto shall come into, or settle in, the State..."

The new definition of lodging which Judge Rebecca Connolly approved: "To occupy a place temporarily or permanently, or temporarily settle or to live in a place, it may, but does not have to include sleeping. It means more than just sleeping and less than moving into a place permanently."

Byers told jurors of the flyer sheriff's passed out willy-nilly to anyone who wanted one: The flyer only stated you are illegally lodging without permission. Merely telling Petitioner or anyone else that they are lodging or that they do not have the owner’s permission in no way clarifies what lodging means or how one can avoid it. In this circumstance “to lodge” illegally appears to have meant to the deputies- to further physically occupy space in any manner on the steps of the Santa Cruz County courthouse.

Sheriff's deputies stopped calling what we were doing as "camping" and started to accuse us of "lodging." We knew something was coming. About a week later, sheriff's handed out this flyer which had no letterhead, was unsigned, and unconvincing in its text as part of their "Education phase." --Photo by Becky Johnson Aug 7 2010

THE COUNTY'S PLAN

Byers told jurors about a 2-phased Plan to get the protesters to leave the location.

--Education phase followed by an Enforcement phase.

"Lt. Plageman testified that they weren't' interfering
with the right to protest.

Their goal was to stop people from the intent of the
protest which was to violate

the law." He told jurors that flyers were handed out in the following way: "If you were lying
down, you were sleeping, you were violating the law. At 4:30AM, they were already
lodging when the

Byers showed some really dark and grainy videos which
roughly show a mess. John Valley's voice can be heard and the sound of Linda coughing. Even worse, he paints the protest as characterized as "junk all over", none of which has ANYTHING to do with Linda Lemaster. Linda was wide awake at 11PM with no bedding. That, at 4:30AM, sheriff's came and found her sitting up and looking sleepy, doesn't mean a crime was committed.

Byers asserted more claims that I doubt are true.

"No one is allowed to lodge on the steps of the courthouse at night." Huh? Lodging isn't defined as an activity done at night only. And when Linda Lemaster was there at 4:30AM, she wasn't trespassing. The courthouse steps were a legal public place to be (at the time. Since this has been changed by County administration to make it a crime to BE THERE between 7PM and 7AM).

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Banner from a rally held by the Brown Berets of Watsonvillein support of the Santa Cruz Eleven.

Photo by Becky Johnson May 4, 2012

by Becky Johnson
Oct 9 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- I went to court this morning. There was much confusion. At my August 20th hearing, I had thought that only Franklin "Angel" Alcantara and Cameron Larendeau were required to be at this hearing. But my lawyer called me yesterday, apologized for not being able to come to the hearing himself, and told me one of the other attorneys had agreed to appear on my behalf.

When I got to court, only Angel and Cameron's names were on the court docket. Wonderful. Someone screwed up again, I thought. I wonder who.

They call our case "The Occupy Case" which is ironic, considering all the arguments that went back and forth to disassociate the 75 River Street Occupation of a long, empty bank building from Occupy Santa Cruz and its encampment in San Lorenzo Park. In the end, OSC stood up and formed a working group to provide support to the Santa Cruz Eleven as we came to be called.

In my own case, I had a lot to do with the encampment in San Lorenzo Park and very little to do with the 75 River Street building takeover, but this case is not about facts and evidence.

We are now down to seven defendants. Bradley Stuart Allen, Alex Darocy, Grant Wilson, and Ed Rector have all had their charges dismissed due to lack of evidence against them. Judge Burdick had also found the case against Cameron and Angel to be lacking evidence, but ADA Rebekah Young refiled against them. This hearing had been scheduled by Cameron's attorney, Briggs, and Angel's attorney Ruben. But Ruben wasn't there. Nor was Briggs. Lisa McCaney, appearing on their behalf asked Young "Where is the additional evidence that you said you had to refile charges against my client?" A photograph referred to in a police report has still not been produced.

Young replied that she had been "confused" as to which motion would be resolved that day. She wasn't the only one! Burdick had sharp words for Ms. Young.

"Its my understanding that I'll be ruling on her motion independent of any discovery violations under discussion. Violations of due process and the procedural morass that has brought us to this point."
This "point" being ten months into the legal process, eight months after sheriff's came to my home and arrested me while I was cooking pancakes, and still two more months to go just to get to my preliminary hearing. And I am eager to get to that point too, where I believe I will too be able to dispense with the specious charges against me. You see, the DA has no case against me.

"I apologize. I'm not prepared to argue her motion." What else is new in this case?

"The people here have a right to a preliminary hearing, not an additional discussion and no new facts," Burdick told her.

"Your honor, I believed the two sole witnesses at the preliminary hearing to be sufficient."

"She says she has additional witnesses who can identify Mr. Alcantara and Mr. Larandeau but none have been forthcoming," McCaney charged.

"Work has been extremely sloppy and we don't have viable opposition papers." But then inexplicably he said "I'm going to deny the motion to dismiss."

Burdick asked if there were any other discovery issues. Attorneys complained about an empty file on one of the disks, but Young insisted that that was how the file came from the SCPD. None of the attorneys mentioned that the videos released many months ago did not have soundtracks, but now, on videos released August 20th, the sound was back but without explanation. Of course this meant the attorneys (and defendants) must now go back and watch over 25 hours of videotape again in order to LISTEN to the dialogue of police engaged in while recording to see if there is more evidence there.

Hackett, appearing on behalf of Norse's attorney David Beauvais said that Beauvais had repeatedly requested for procedural manuals on instructions for police on crowd control, use of tear gas, and their policy concerning 1st amendment issues.

Young answered that the SCPD "has no first amendment policy." Burdick seemed puzzled by this. "There must be some manual or procedures for crowd control and the use of chemical agents."

Should it be achieved by subpoena? one of the defense attorneys quipped.

Burdick ignored this and just instructed Young to "look for those."

Then Burdick announced that he had contemplated what the appropriate sanctions against the DA's office should be springing from his statement on August 20th. He ruled that the sanctions would be to bill the DA's office for additional expenses that out of county attorneys only had when they were required to come to attend additional hearings due to Young's failures to provide discovery in a timely or forthright manner. There would be no relief for defendants dragged to every hearing on threat of arrest, missing work, school, time with loved ones and incurring costs. Attorneys are paid, defendants are not.

The remaining defendants face a preliminary hearing on January 7th at 9AM in Dept 6. A readiness hearing is scheduled for January 4th also at 9AM.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Robert "Blindbear" Facer, an Amish street minister, is issued a $445 citation for "unreasonably disturbing noise" when he kept a 31-year old nearby resident from napping. Jan 6, 2010 Photo by Becky Johnson

NOTE TO READER:Can u imagine? The LAW that I was convicted under for singing a few
songs in the middle of the afternoon in my unamplified singing voice in
the FREE SPEECH ZONE no less!! has been found by a Judge OUTSIDE Santa
Cruz County to be "unconstitutional"? Surprise. Surprise. Surprise. What's next? Will the City seek the courts to expunge my conviction? Will they refund the $250 of community service I performed? An apology? Or will they just find another way to drive activists and musicians off of Pacific Ave.? ---Becky Johnson, ed.

Judge tosses out part of Santa Cruz noise rule as too vague to meet 'constitutional muster'

SANTA
CRUZ -- A federal judge has thrown out a portion of Santa Cruz's noise
ordinance and ordered the city to stop enforcing it.

U.S. District
Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte﻿ ruled Friday in favor of an Alameda County
man arrested in May 2010 after ignoring requests from a police officer
to stop preaching loudly downtown. William Hampsmire﻿ was cited under
the city's "unreasonably disturbing noise" rule, though the District
Attorney's Office eventually declined to prosecute.

The judge
found the ordinance -- which bans noise that is "unreasonably disturbing
or physically annoying" or "not necessary" to participate in lawful
activities -- is vague and "fails to pass constitutional muster." The
judge said determining what level of noise is necessary is subjective.
Hampsmire filed suit in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, in ﻿May.

"I
certainly think the city should have a noise ordinance, but the
ordinance needs to be clear and measurable," said Mike Millen, a Los
Gatos attorney who brought the claim and said he has represented
Hampsmire when officers elsewhere have asked him to quiet down.

The
judge denied Hampsmire's claim that his free-speech rights were
violated and found no evidence that the arresting officer acted out of
an objection to the man's religious speech.
The case will go to trial unless the parties settle. Millen said he will seek payment from the city for his legal fees, which he estimated at $40,000.

City
Attorney John Barisone said the ordinance has been upheld a number of
times in state courts, adding, "This is really the first time a judge
has had a problem with the language in our law." He said he will work
with the City Council to amend the ordinance for clarity.

The
judge's order does not affect other parts of the city's noise ordinance,
including barring loud noises from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. Deputy Police
Chief Steve Clark said the ruling also does not affect the ability of
officers to cite or arrest people whom they believe are using noise to
disturb the peace.

Hampsmire was preaching on the sidewalk on
Pacific Avenue at Cooper Street about 6 p.m. on a Sunday when a man in
an office about 70 feet away complained to police about the loud noise,
saying Hampsmire had been speaking for about an hour, according to a
court record. Officer Patrick Bayani responded and determined Hampsmire
did not need to be so loud, even to be heard across the street, and
asked him to move or reduce the noise.

The officer said Hampsmire
refused and told him "You're going to have to arrest me for preaching
... for my freedom of religion," according to the record. The man began
preaching even louder after handing his belongings to a woman who was
videotaping the incident.

Hampsmire was booked into jail for disturbing the peace and later released, the record said.

The
city used the ordinance in 2010 to prosecute advocates for the homeless
who sang in protest outside Bookshop Santa Cruz, which is owned by the
family of Councilman Ryan Coonerty, a vocal critic of aggressive
panhandling and other social problems downtown. The city attorney said
Friday's ruling can't be applied to previous cases.

Police have issued
121 citations using the rule since 2011, according to city records.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

SENTINEL photo by photographer Dan Coyro shows two park rangers approaching a very messy campsite as part of the sweeps which began on July 9th, 2012. Such images are used to villify homeless people and portray the worst case scenario as the norm.

Do Homeless People "trash" the Environment?

What do the number say?

by Becky Johnson

September 23, 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- After a recent beach/inland waterway clean-up by Save Our Shores, the
following formula was proffered: Litter Produced = (2.4 oz to 12.9lbs) per
volunteer hour x hours worked. Using this standard, we can try to assess how dirty the areas where homeless encampments have been found were/are.

Unifying terms into decimals, we find a range of (0.17
lbs - 12.9 lbs) per volunteer hour collected with an average being 6.4 lbs on Monterey and Santa Cruz County area beaches and inland waterways

"At the extremes: Carmel River State Beach yielded an average of 2.4 ounces
of trash, and Elkhorn Slough produced 12.9 pounds, per volunteer-hour." -- Laura Kasa, Save Our
Shores Sept 20 2012

A homeless woman is rousted from a large encampment by the Santa Cruz Police Department on December 8, 2011 from San Lorenzo Park. Photo by Chip Scheuer

With this formula in hand, we can work backwards and
determine how "trashy" an area was at the time of the clean-up. Since homeless encampments are found primarily in the inland waterway areas, those are the statistics we are most interested in.

Save Our Shores reports that 550 volunteers
picked up 850 lbs of trash (pollution) in 3 hours. So the average person picked
up 4.6 lbs of trash at a rate of 1.54 lbs per volunteer hour.

The San Lorenzo River Clean-up produced 315 lbs of trash
by 130 volunteers in 3 hours or 2.4 lbs of trash per person at a rate of 0.8 lbs
per volunteer hour. While not as clean as Carmel River State Beach, 0.8lbs per volunteer hour is squeaky clean. Especially compared to the average found throughout the region during the entire beach/waterways cleanup.

Perhaps homeless people are cleaning up more trash than
they are leaving? Or these are areas where Public Works, Caltrans, and Boy Scout groups clean up regularly?

City Council candidates Cynthia Mathews, Richelle Noroyan, and Pamela
Comstock don't have any evidence of an "environmental" reason for supporting the
homeless sweeps. And Mayor Don Lane's silence on the sweeps is deafening.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

NOTE TO READER: Below is a letter from former County Supervisor, Gary Patton and current City of Santa Cruz resident. Patton calls the plan "a high risk venture" and is opposed to the City of Santa Cruz investment of 2/3 of our reserves in a for-profit professional basketball league as currently proposed. He has concluded that the deal will make money for the Seaside Company but not the City. Here is his letter in its entirety delivered and ignored by the Santa Cruz City Council with a 6-0 vote on Wednesday, September 12th. ---- Becky Johnson, Ed.

This
letter is to express my personal views. I am a resident of the City of
Santa Cruz, and I have an individual and personal interest in the City’s
proper compliance with local zoning and other laws, and with the
state’s environmental laws. I am also concerned, as a city taxpayer, that the Council not place the financial assets of the city at risk.

I
understand that at its September 11, 2012 meeting the Council will
consider two different agenda items related to a proposal to build a
basketball arena on land owned by the Santa Cruz Seaside Company,
located at the intersection of Front Street and Spruce Street, on the
fringes of the commercial areas of downtown Santa Cruz. I have reviewed
the agenda items made available on the City’s website (which do not
include the actual legal and financial agreements that the Council is
being asked to approve). I have also read with attention the news
articles in the Santa Cruz Sentinel
that have commented on the proposal. I was particularly struck by the
following statement made by the City Manager (presuming that he was
quoted correctly) in the September 8, 2012 edition of the Sentinel:

“This isn’t a money-making scheme for the city.”

I
hope that Council Members will pay attention to the implications of
this statement by the City Manager. I think it is absolutely clear from
the materials that I have been able to review that the City Manager is
correct about this proposed project. Supposedly, this is an “economic
development” project, but it is a project that the City Manager believes
(I think correctly) will not make money for the city. The
project will presumably make money for the Warriors. It is likely to
make money for the Seaside Company. But it won’t make any money for the
City of Santa Cruz.

If that is true (and I think the City Manager is right) why fund this effort?

Financial Concerns

Here
are some of my specific concerns about the financial and business
aspects of this proposed project, as the project is presented in Agenda
Item #1. Again, neither I nor any other member of the public has had the
benefit of reviewing the actual financial agreements that the Council
would be endorsing, if the Council approves the recommendations before
it. Perhaps my concerns would disappear if I were able to review the
actual legal documents. More likely, my concerns would be even more
focused and specific than the concerns I am presenting in the following
list:

The
City would be investing more than $4.1 million dollars in the
arena project (various staff and other costs have not been included
in the $4.1 million dollar figure, which is thus a “low” figure
with respect to actual city costs). The specific $4.1 million
dollar investment has been characterized as a “loan” in various
public statements made by City Council members, the City Manager,
and others. In fact, the transaction is not really a “loan.”
That can be seen most clearly from the fact that the so-called
“loan” has a 15‑year amortization period, and yet the facility that
the “loan” is helping to construct is temporary, and is slated to
be removed after seven years. If
there is a remaining outstanding balance after seven years (which
there is almost certain to be, since the payments are intended to
pay off the “loan” in fifteen years, not seven years), then the City
and the Warriors will “split” the outstanding balance due. This
transaction results in a “contribution” to the Warriors, not a
“loan” to the Warriors. Moreover, the Warriors in a certain
sense have an inducement to maximize the amount owing at the end of
the seven year period, since the bigger that number, the more the
city’s payment will be, and the less the Warriors will have had to
pay.

Not having seen the actual documents, it’s hard to tell for sure, but it
appears that the City does not even get an enforceable commitment
by the Warriors to play their next seven seasons in Santa Cruz. If
attendance isn’t what the Warriors had hoped (or maybe if some
other city gives them another good deal), it appears that the
Warriors will be able to walk away. There will be some security, but
it’s not 100% security. Again, a genuine “loan” of the city’s
financial reserves should only be made if there is true security
that is intended to guarantee the return of the loaned amount.

Since the city’s contribution is not a “loan,” what is it? In
fact, it appears that the city’s investment is a contribution to a
kind of joint venture with the Warriors (and not the “real”
Warriors, either, but a “shell corporation” using that name, which
has no assets of its own). To be clear about it, the
recommendation before the Council is that the City of Santa Cruz
should go into the basketball and arena business.

Let’s examine the “basketball business” first. It appears that the city, not the Warriors, is taking the big risk in that business, as this deal is structured.
If the Santa Cruz Warriors don’t make money in Santa Cruz (i.e.,
if basketball in Santa Cruz isn’t the great draw that people hope
it might be), the Warriors can move on. But the City of Santa Cruz
is left holding the bag for the facility, since the city is the
owner, and the value of that asset will be much diminished without a
team. In addition, of course, the city will also have a so-called
“loan” that will never be repaid in full.

Assuming that things go well with the basketball business, what does that mean? Has
the city reviewed any survey of D-League basketball team
attendance/revenue, so that the city can gauge what sort of revenue
and attendance might be generated at the proposed facility?
It’s not mentioned in the materials available to the public on this
agenda. There ought to be such a survey, before the city makes a
commitment.

The
proposed location of the arena doesn’t lead me to believe that
this is going to be a natural “winner” as a place for a successful
arena business. Building a
2,800-seat arena on the fringes of the downtown commercial area,
with no adjacent parking, is quite problematic. Those who want
to come to the game will first have to locate the facility, and
then will have to scout all over downtown for a parking space, and
then will have to walk to the arena. This isn’t an automatic game
plan for a booming attendance. It
could be raining. It could be dark and cold. The Front
Street/Spruce Street area in which the arena is proposed is not a great
area in which to be walking around during the evening, or at night,
and especially not when it’s cold and dark. When there is no
parking provided, it makes it really hard to think that this is
going to be a great success. Oh, and don’t forget the parking
tickets that at least some fans will inevitably get if they do find
parking at downtown meters. That’s revenue for the city, of
course, but when a fan gets a parking ticket after having had a
hard time finding a spot in the first place, that may be the last
time that that particular fan ever drives to Santa Cruz for a
Warriors game.

Has
there been a survey to see whether there is any D-League
basketball team that has ever had success with a 2,800-seat basketball
arena when there is no adjacent parking? There ought to be such a survey before the city makes a commitment.

Now
let’s look at the “arena” business. It seems clear that if the
city is ever going to break even on this proposed deal (much less
make money), the city is going to have to rent out the arena
facility when the Warriors aren’t using it. The Warriors are only
going to be using the arena from November to April, so during the
spring and summer, the city is going to have to find alternative
users. If the city isn’t
successful in finding other users, it’s pretty clear that the city
won’t get its so‑called “loan” back.

The
Council should take a long pause before it puts the city in the
position of running an “arena business.” Here are some things to
think about:

·The city is already running an “arena” business (the Civic Auditorium). This new arena on Front and Spruce will compete against the city’s own Civic Auditorium facility. That is problematic, in and of itself. In addition, the city has not made money on the Civic. If the city can’t make money on its existing arena business, why does anyone think that it can run two arenas successfully?

·Running the “arena business” will cost money. There are new costs for city staffing that don’t seem to be factored in.

·The
current plan assumes that there will be parking available in the
greater downtown area during the late fall and winter, when the Warriors
will be using the Front/Spruce arena. However, there will be less
parking available in the greater downtown area during the spring and
summer months, when the general tourist trade ramps up. This means that
there is not going to be much chance to attract lots of users during the
“on” season of the year. Materials in the agenda packet indicate that
UCSC might be interested, but I don’t believe that the campus fields
sports teams during the summer. Has there been a formal revenue study,
so that the Council can see likely revenues from the city’s operation of
the arena during the Warriors’ off-season, and match those likely
revenues against actual costs? There ought to be, before the city makes a
commitment.

·If
the city is actually going to go into the basketball/arena business,
there should be a business plan in place before the Council commits
two-thirds of the city’s financial reserves to what amounts to a
high‑risk venture.

Here
a few other concerns about the financial and business aspects of
the proposal, to the extent that a member of the public can
understand that proposal without having access to the actual legal
agreements which the Council will apparently be approving:

·How much will it cost to deconstruct and remove the arena facility at the end of the seven years? Who
is going to pay for this? I presume that the city will pay for removal,
since the city is going to be the “owner” of the facility. I bet the
removal costs could be $500,000 or more. Has any study or analysis been
done? The Council should have a
good estimate of those costs, before it makes a commitment, since
deconstruction and removal costs are a cost that will presumably be paid
for by the city, and this is another cost that may well not be offset
by the revenues that the business is going to generate.

·Has
anyone noticed that the Seaside Company owns the land? At the end of
seven years, faced with what could be very significant removal costs,
the city may want to retain the arena on the Front/Spruce street
property. But that property is not owned by the city. Unless
the city has an option to lease or purchase the property, set now, the
city will be at the mercy of the Seaside Company in seven years, since
the city will have to pay whatever the Seaside Company demands, or
vacate the property, and incur removal costs that the city may find are
truly horrendous. Again, the Council should insure that this issue
is fully dealt with in the documents, and that the city’s interests are
protected, before it makes a commitment.

·As our community faces a genuine water crisis, I
think it is unconscionable that the Council should be asked to excuse
the Warriors from paying sewer and water fees. They will be using the
water for their business. They should pay for it just like everyone
else. Incidentally, the staff report says that these fees, owed by
the Warriors, will be “deferred,” giving the impression that the
Warriors will pay these costs, but at a later time. In fact, the staff
materials also reveal that the city is planning to impose a $1.00
surcharge on each ticket sold, and to use this money to repay itself for
the so-called “deferred” fees. In other words, the fans, not the
Warriors, will be paying this bill. The fees that the Warriors should
normally pay aren’t really “deferred,” at all; they are just going to be
paid by someone else – those who attend the Warriors’ games).

·The
plan to move 225 cars from the Seaside Company’s private parking lot at
Front and Spruce Streets, and to give those cars free parking at the
city’s downtown parking garage at Front and River should raise lots of
concerns. The Front/River garage is in the heart of the downtown
commercial district, and giving away parking places there could have
really adverse impacts on the employees of downtown businesses, and on
downtown business customers. In other words, if
cars of workers who are working at the beach are allowed to take up 225
parking spaces in what amounts to the City’s prime downtown parking
structure, the impact of this on downtown businesses may be quite
negative. Has there been a study of the possible impacts of giving
away these 225 parking spaces, looking forward over the next seven
years? Until the Council really understands this potential impact, the
Council should not make a commitment to the current proposal.

·Item #11 on the September 11, 2012 Consent Agenda indicates that the Front/River parking garage has 463 spaces. By
giving the Seaside Company 225 spaces free, the city would thus be
committing 49% of the spaces in that garage to free parking for the
Seaside Company, as an in-kind payment for the use of the Seaside
Company property on Front/Spruce. Again according to Consent Agenda Item
#11, the city is planning to charge everyone else $31 per month for a
parking permit in the Front/River garage. That means that the
value to the Seaside Company, for 225 spaces, is $6,975 per month;
$83,700 per year; and $585,900 over the seven year period contemplated.
This payment, going to the Seaside Company, is not discussed in the
analysis presented to the Council.

·Finally,
it is being proposed that the Council “delegate” to the City Manager
(with approval of the City Attorney) the details of the various lease
and other agreements that will define this deal in legal terms. The
Council should require that the actual agreements come before it, so
the Council can assume full responsibility for its actions – and so
members of the public can have a chance to see the details of the
proposal, before it is approved.

Environmental Concerns

In
addition to great concerns about the financial and business aspects of
the proposal before the Council, I am quite distressed by what I think
is the noncompliance of the city with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). I also think that the city is, in
effect, avoiding the provisions of its own zoning laws, since the
proposed facility is not really appropriate for the RH zone district.

Specifically, with respect to CEQA, I do not believe that the proposed facility qualifies for a categorical exemption, as the Council has been advised.
CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared whenever a proposed project
“might” have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The
parking analysis seems to be based on a 2,800-seat facility, but the
facility will be able to seat 4,000 persons for non-Warriors events.
This impact has apparently not been analyzed. This is not the kind of
“infill” project that qualifies for an exemption. Predictable traffic
and parking impacts translate into direct physical changes in the
environment that are likely to be significantly adverse. The Council
should not make a commitment to this project unless and until it
undertakes a proper review of the environmental impacts of the project
under CEQA.

Conclusion

I urge the Council not to proceed with the project as proposed. While I think that there are legal deficiencies, my
appeal to the Council is mostly based on the lack of a business plan
that shows that this investment of about two-thirds of the city’s
financial reserve funds is going to have a demonstrably positive impact
for the city.

Maybe this proposed project will have positive economic impacts; maybe
it will “pay off,” and will represent a good investment of the city’s
reserve funds. However, Council Members should pay attention to the
remarks of the City Manager:

“This isn’t a money-making scheme for the city.”

When I look at the future, with respect to local government finances, I don’t see a rosy picture. Please don’t put two‑thirds of the city’s financial reserves at risk, on what amounts to a very speculative business venture.

If this is a good business investment, then the business people who own the Warriors should be willing to make the investment.
If they ask for city help, by way of investment, then they should sign
agreements that will insure that the city’s funds are protected, and
that the amount that the city makes available is returned, in full, at
the end of the investment period.

That isn’t the deal that is before you on September 11th.

The
Warriors have not asked the city for an “investment” or a “loan.” They
have essentially asked that the City of Santa Cruz join them in the
basketball/arena business, with the city bearing most of the risk.

About Me

Longtime Santa Cruz homeless advocate, Becky Johnson has written for Street Spirit, produced "Bathrobespierre's Broadsides: Civil Rights for the Poor" and has lobbied for homeless civil rights with HUFF, Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom, and produced her own television show "Club Cruz" which covered local and poverty issues. Currently Ms. Johnson is one of the founders of Peace Camp 2010 located on the courthouse steps until the City of Santa Cruz repeals the Sleeping Ban.